alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dudley Harold BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28502.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1956.

Ray - Stevens, Houston, for appellant. '

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving an automobile while his operator’s license was suspended, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

The offense is alleged to have occurred on or about the 23rd day of November, 1955.

All the evidence shows that the operator’s license which had’been issued to appellant expired on February 13, 1954, and had not been suspended prior to its expiration. No renewal of that license is shown to have been issued, nor is it shown that another license had been issued to, the appellant.

Of necessity, therefore, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense appellant had no operator’s license which might be or wás suspended.

Because the evidence fails to support the conviction, the "judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Susquehanna River Basin Commission

# AGENCY:

Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice lists Grandfathering Registration for projects by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in                         **DATES**                        .                    

# DATES:

January 1-31, 2024.

# ADDRESSES:

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:                         *joyler@srbc.gov.*                         Regular mail inquiries may be sent to the above address.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice lists GF Registration for projects described below, pursuant to 18 CFR part 806, subpart E, for the time period specified above:

1. State University of New York at Morrisville—SUNY Morrisville, GF Certificate No. GF-202401267, Village of Morrisville, Madison County, N.Y.; combined withdrawals from Wells 1 and 2, and Well 3; Issue Date: January 19, 2024.

2. U.S. Silica Company—Mapleton Plant, GF Certificate No. GF-202401268, Brady Township, Huntingdon County, Pa.; Juniata River, Quarry Sump, and consumptive use; Issue Date: January 19, 2024.

3. York Building Products Co., Inc.—Lincoln Stone Quarry, GF Certificate No. GF-202401269, Jackson Township, York County, Pa.; Quarry Sump and consumptive use; Issue Date: January 19, 2024.

4. York Building Products Co., Inc.—Roosevelt Quarry, GF Certificate No. GF-202401270, West Manchester Township, York County, Pa.; Quarry Sump and consumptive use; Issue Date: January 19, 2024.

*Authority:*                     Public Law 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509                     *et seq.,*18 CFR parts 806 and 808.                

Dated: February 8, 2024.

Jason E. Oyler,

General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2024-02982 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7040-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6133

MICHAEL WAYNE LUCK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-01-541-2)

Submitted: March 12, 2002 Decided: April 12, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Luck, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wayne Luck appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See Luck v. Angelone, No. CA-01-541-2 (E.D. Va.

Jan. 8, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## Addendum to AEO 2013(provided by William Brown at EIA on 6/5/13) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ethanol (billion gallons)

Imports 0.015 0.171 0.508 0.830 0.719 0.742 0.871 0.894 1.032 1.060 1.314 Cellulosic 0.0000.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.000 0.000 Non-cellulosic 0.015 0.171 0.508 0.830 0.719 0.742 0.871 0.894 1.032 1.060 1.314 Exports 0.398 1.1940.858 0.885 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000.000 0.224 Delta -0.383-1.023-0.350-0.055 0.719 0.742 0.871 0.894 1.032 1.060 1.090 in MMbbl.d -0.025-0.067-0.023-0.0040.047 0.048 0.057 0.058 0.067 0.069 0.071 Ethanol (million gallons)

Imports 15 171 508 830 719 742 871 894 1,032 1,060 1,314 Cellulosic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-cellulosic 15 171 508 830 719 742 871 894 1,032 1,060 1,314 Exports 398 1,194 858 885 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 Delta -383-1,023 -350 -55 719 742 871 894 1,032 1,060 1,090
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2584

PATRICIA DEARING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARFORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, and Members of the Board of Trustees; LELAND C. SANBORN, Chair; PATRICIA A. PERLUKE, Vice Chair; ALAN W. BENTON, Doctor; CHARLES E. COPELAND, SR., Reverend; NICHOLAS L. GOUNARIS; RALPH H. JORDAN; ANN B. RAMSAY; PAUL C. SANDS; LEHMAN W. SPRY, Doctor; DIANE TROYER, Doctor, Vice President; RICHARD J. PAPPAS, Doctor; GERTRUDE B. HOPKINS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA96-2176-CCB) Submitted: January 26, 1999 Decided: March 5, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Dearing, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Marie Truhe, JANOFSKY & TRUHE, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting summaryjudgment to Appellees. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dearing v. Harford Community College , No. CA-96-2176-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 15,1998). Appellant’s motion to authorize the preparation of a transcript at government expense is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1326

In re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 4:16

- mc
- 00003

- BO )

Submitted : May 23, 2017 Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Daniel Johnson Willis , Petitioner Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Daniel Johnson Willis petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to file his civil complaint . We conclude that Willis is not entitled to
mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U .S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United
States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F. 2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Willis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to pr oceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition and corrected petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the de cisional process.
PETITION DENIED
#### Jack FOLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28539.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The. .offense is burglary; the punishment, 6 years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement 'of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1997 AS 
SUBMITTED IN THE COMPANY'S 10-K FOR THAT PERIOD AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,894
<SECURITIES>                                       259
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,785
<INVENTORY>                                      3,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,777
<PP&E>                                           6,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,338
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,850)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,206
<SALES>                                         53,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,822
<CGS>                                           24,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   545
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,010)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,010)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.12)
        

</TABLE>
September 4, 2015

Mr. Daniel Mackin

330 Jewel Street

Apartment C

New Orleans, LA 70124

Dear Mr. Mackin:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

part 21, subpart H; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we 

cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2495, but we are unable 

to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
#### George Norrel THOMASON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28875.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles D. Cabánissj Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 10 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no. statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 10.7  


 
 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT    
    


        This SECOND AMENDMENT TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT, dated as of October 24, 2003 (the "Amendment"), is
entered into by and between JAMDAT Mobile Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Bill Gurley, an individual
("Additional Indemnitee"). 


        WHEREAS
the Company is a party to that certain Indemnification Agreement, dated February 26, 2001 and subsequently amended as of August 30, 2002 (as amended, the
"Indemnification Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company has agreed to indemnify certain of its directors and stockholders. 


        WHEREAS
the Indemnification Agreement permits the Company to add additional parties as Indemnitees (as defined in the Indemnification Agreement) thereunder by the execution and delivery
of additional signature pages thereto by such additional Indemnitees. 


        WHEREAS
a condition precedent to the closing of the transactions contemplated by that certain Series D Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 24, 2003, by
and among the Company and the investors signatory thereto, is the addition of Additional Indemnitee as an Indemnitee under the Indemnification Agreement. 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree hereby as follows: 



        1.    Additional Indemnitee.    From and after the execution and delivery of this Amendment, the Company and
Additional Indemnitee hereby agree that Additional Indemnitee shall be an Indemnitee under the Indemnification Agreement and that each of the Company and Additional Indemnitee shall be subject to and
bound by the terms of the Indemnification Agreement. 



        2.    Effect.    Except as and to the extent amended by this Amendment, the Indemnification Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 


        3.    Counterparts.    This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 



[Signature Page Follows]


1







 

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written. 



	 	 	COMPANY:
	

 	
 	

JAMDAT MOBILE INC.,

a Delaware corporation
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ CRAIG GATARZ

	 	 	Printed Name: Craig Gatarz

Title: COO and General Counsel
	

 	
 	

ADDITIONAL INDEMNITEE:
	

 	
 	

/s/ BILL GURLEY
 Bill Gurley, an individual




2











QuickLinks


SECOND AMENDMENT TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 3691

_____________________________ G ERMAINE R. R UDDICK ,
Petitioner
,

v.

C APTAIN J OHNS , Corrections Officer
, Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

October 28, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

R AY , C.J., and M AKAR and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Germaine R. Ruddick, pro se
, Petitioner

. No appearance for Respondent

.
#### Sidney F. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Joe CROW, Appellee.

No. 13520.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 21, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1959.

Gerald Weatherly, Laredo, for appellant.

David L. Tisinger, Austin, for appellee.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted in the 111th District Court of Webb County, by Sidney F. Wright of Webb County, against Joe Crow of Travis County, seeking the return of $2,000 placed with defendant as earnest money on a real estate sales contract. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had converted this $2,000 and asked for an additional $1,000 as exemplary damage. Defendant filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Travis County, the county of his residence, which was by the trial court sustained, and Sidney F. Wright has prosecuted this appeal.

At the time of placing the money with Crow, Wright was also a resident of Travis County, but later moved to Webb County. The real estate deal failed to go through, but, according to the testimony of Wright, *951Crow had been indefinite as to whether he would return the $2,000. Thereafter, Wright having moved to Webb County, employed an attorney of Laredo to represent him in this cause. He was informed by his Laredo attorney that if he would call Crow over long distance telephone and make a demand upon him for the return of his $2,-000 and Crow refused his demand, venue would lie in Webb County. This Wright did and Crow refused the return of the money. It is here contended that as a result of this telephone conversation Webb County has venue of this suit. We do not kgree.

The method of communicating with 'Crow, who was at that time in Austin, Travis County, Texas, was selected by Wright. Therefore, the telephone was the agency or instrumentality of Wright. Calling Crow over the phone was just the same as though Wright had gone in person to Austin and there demanded of Crow the return of the $2,000. The fact that Wright, while in Webb County, reached Crow through an instrumentality selected by him, and which saved him a trip to Travis County, in no way changes the situation. If Wright could fix venue in Webb County by the simple process of placing a long distance telephone call from Webb County to Travis County, then he could have fixed venue in any other county of the State by simply calling from a county which he might choose as venue for his suit.

The case of Hayter v. Hudgens, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W. 232, is in point here. Hayter, who was in Nacogdoches County, telephoned Hudgens, who was in Rusk County, offering to sell Hudgens certain land for the sum of $7,500, which offer Hudgens accepted over the telephone. This transaction was fraudulent, and the Court held the fraud was committed in Rusk County; that the situation was just the same as if Hayter had gone to Rusk County and there made'the offer in person to Hudgens.

The judgment sustaining appellee’s plea of privilege is affirmed.
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Tell-A-Tale Incorporated (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

November 10,2004